RAM SINGH MEENA S/O SH. RAM KARAN MEENA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/9399/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02044807202305 January 2024Bench: ARUN BHANSALI,ASHUTOSH KUMAR2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the release of the disputed property. The Court reasoned that the issue raised by the petitioner had been decided by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. While the revenue pointed to a pending review petition, they could not dispute that the Supreme Court's order was still operative. The Court found that the petition deserved to be allowed based on the existing Supreme Court judgment. The release of the property was made subject to the final order that might be passed by the Supreme Court in the pending review petition. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court should follow a binding Supreme Court judgment even if a review petition is pending, unless the Supreme Court has stayed its earlier order or directed otherwise.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Singh Meena, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging an action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and Initiating Officer, and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Jaipur. The petitioner sought the release of a disputed property, described as '01/12 part of Khasra No. 832 [having total area of 0.05 hectare] of Village Kukas, Tehsil-Amer, District Jaipur'. The petitioner contended that the issue raised in the petition had been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. The respondents acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision but noted that a review petition was pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition should be allowed in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2022 SC 4558)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue in the writ petition has been authoritatively decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., and therefore, the petition should be allowed. Revenue's Contention: The respondents submitted that although the Supreme Court had decided the issue in the cited case, a review petition against that judgment was pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, they could not dispute that the Supreme Court's order remained operative.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:693-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9399/2023 Ram Singh Meena S/o Sh. Ram Karan Meena, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village And Post - Mainpura, Tehsil And District - Sawai Madhopur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Prohibition) And Initiating Officer, Under Pbpt Act-1988 For State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Room No. - Na-103, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circule, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Prohibition), Jaipur, Room No. 250, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 05/01/2024 The application No.01/2023 seeking disposal of the writ petition is allowed. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this petition has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 4558. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, would submit

[2024:RJ-JP:693-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-9399/2023] that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the issue in the aforesaid case, review petition has been filed which is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, could not dispute that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) remains operative and has not been decided so far. In view of the above, this petition also deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the property in dispute being “01/12 part of Khasra No. 832 [having total area of 0.05 hectare] of Village Kukas, Tehsil-Amer, District Jaipur” deserves to be released. Let necessary steps be taken to release the disputed property. It is, however, made clear that the release will be subject to the final order that may ultimately be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending review petition. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J AARZOO ARORA/TANISHA /25

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →